Why I believe the universe is round.

[Bit]

Was really stoned one night, meditating several years ago, perhaps 5 or so, was really hung up on the universe, and being the visual person that I am if I can't visualize something it drives me NUTS, so I tried to imagine that the universe in infinite, or rather picture it, I can't, the human mind can't comprehend that, so to speak, so I tried to imagine a world where the universe in finite, a giant black impassable wall perhaps? No that's ridiculous.

So I begun to think, how could something both be finite, and not? A globe, people for the longest time thought the earth was infinite, you look out into the distance and see on and on, with no end in sight.

So why couldn't the universe be round? Molecules, atoms, planets, and oh so many other things in nature are round. Why wouldn't the universe follow suit?

Btw, I recently found out Stephen Hawkins had the same idea when I was reading an article "10 Things you didn't know about Stephen Hawkins"

I believe this, and hope somebody manages to prove it.

Your thoughts?

 

[Bit]

Anyone else have thoughts? I'm curious.

 

[Devour]

It is kind of impossible to tell, I think it just never ends or once it does it goes into another universe. Or just blackholes surround the end making it look endless and once we go thru we go to another universe. I hope some day we have the ability to go thru a black hole so I can experience.

 

[Hysteria]

No. The universe isn't round. (My opinion)
People thought the earth was flat not infinite.

 

[Evil]

I believe the universe is ever expanding meaning their is no end and I also believe that the universe is round like many other universe's.

 

[Bit]

No. The universe isn't round. (My opinion)
People thought the earth was flat not infinite.

Why do you believe the universe isn't round?

People have thought many things about the earth, not just what you read in text books and Christopher Columbus' voyage.

---

I believe the universe is ever expanding meaning their is no end and I also believe that the universe is round like many other universe's.

An ever expanding globe, I could see that.

 

[JohnnyG]

My opinion on this subject would be that the Universe is constantly expanding from the Big Bang but eventually will come to a rest. Of course, billions of years from now.

 

[Cann!bal]

Was really stoned one night, meditating several years ago, perhaps 5 or so, was really hung up on the universe, and being the visual person that I am if I can't visualize something it drives me NUTS, so I tried to imagine that the universe in infinite, or rather picture it, I can't, the human mind can't comprehend that, so to speak, so I tried to imagine a world where the universe in finite, a giant black impassable wall perhaps? No that's ridiculous.

So I begun to think, how could something both be finite, and not? A globe, people for the longest time thought the earth was infinite, you look out into the distance and see on and on, with no end in sight.

So why couldn't the universe be round? Molecules, atoms, planets, and oh so many other things in nature are round. Why wouldn't the universe follow suit?

Btw, I recently found out Stephen Hawkins had the same idea when I was reading an article "10 Things you didn't know about Stephen Hawkins"

I believe this, and hope somebody manages to prove it.

Your thoughts?

I have doubts you can conceptualize the size of an atom, infinity, absolute nothingness and string theory's proposed 17th dimension accurately either. Your theory, boundless universe theory, proposes the Cosmos' fabric is 4-dimensional, contradicting your statement that the wall of absolute nothingness and an infinite universe is of error because of the 'folly' and incomprehensibility. You can't visualize the 4th dimension either for we live a 3-dimensional world. Your circular pattern argument isn't putting up much of a fight, too.

To be accurate, the chief majority visualized the Earth with edges for the longest time before they conceptualized the planet as a sphere.

I'm not suggesting boundless universe theory is erroneous, simply that your reasoning to believe in it entirely is.

 

[Bit]

I have doubts you can conceptualize the size of an atom, infinity, absolute nothingness and string theory's proposed 17th dimension accurately either. Your theory, boundless universe theory, proposes the Cosmos' fabric is 4-dimensional, contradicting your statement that the wall of absolute nothingness and an infinite universe is of error because of the 'folly' and incomprehensibility. You can't visualize the 4th dimension either for we live a 3-dimensional world. Your circular pattern argument isn't putting up much of a fight, too.

To be accurate, the chief majority visualized the Earth with edges for the longest time before they conceptualized the planet as a sphere.

I'm not suggesting boundless universe theory is erroneous, simply that your reasoning to believe in it entirely is.

To be accurate, the chief majority visualized the Earth with edges for the longest time before they conceptualized the planet as a sphere.

How about a demonstration in one's ability to comprehend what the "majority" of the world "was".

History is written by the winner, you win the war, you write history. Every great leader knows that., book burnings, propaganda, the media, you name it.

Therefore ancient history is and always will remain unreliable, even more so than present history, maybe.

So basically you're attempting to discredit my argument using poor logic , whatever sources you may, or may not, of dug up that could possibly tell you what majority of the world's population believed what at a certain point in time, is unlikely., for lack of the word impossible

You are also trying to criticize my ability to visualize something, yet you are not inside of my head, nor will you ever be. Yet you seem to act that way.

You're acting like this is a contest, or so it appears that way. I'm not here to "be right", I don't seek to feed my ego, only my knowledge.

If I may kindly ask you to be a little more thoughtful with your arguments in the future. Thanks.

Very heartfelt response, though. Rep for you. Edit: Nvm you're a mod lol

 

[Cann!bal]

How about a demonstration in one's ability to comprehend what the "majority" of the world "was".

History is written by the winner, you win the war, you write history. Every great leader knows that., book burnings, propaganda, the media, you name it.

Therefore ancient history is and always will remain unreliable, even more so than present history, maybe.

So basically you're attempting to discredit my argument using poor logic , whatever sources you may, or may not, of dug up that could possibly tell you what majority of the world's population believed what at a certain point in time, is unlikely., for lack of the word impossible

You are also trying to criticize my ability to visualize something, yet you are not inside of my head, nor will you ever be. Yet you seem to act that way.

You're acting like this is a contest, or so it appears that way. I'm not here to "be right", I don't seek to feed my ego, only my knowledge.

If I may kindly ask you to be a little more thoughtful with your arguments in the future. Thanks.

Very heartfelt response, though. Rep for you. Edit: Nvm you're a mod lol

Indigenous tribes, such as the Aztecs believed in the concept of a flat Earth. (With evidence supposedly predating Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire, so your manifestation is out of the equation.) The Aztecs and the Europeans never made contact, yet they both believed in this concept, as well as gods. Humans believe things on how they appear. Look at any historic or indigenous culture and you'll see a repetition of this idea. It appeared that the Earth was the center of the universe. It appeared that the harvests were dictated by the gods. It appeared the Earth was a flat square or disc, because they knew if it was a sphere, they would be falling off (they had no concept of gravity), and the Aztecs had still not developed the concept of infinity and the Europeans had just begun to let go of their ideology of a flat Earth a couple centuries ago, making your manifestation make less sense in this scenario. The flat Earth ideology is even written in the bible, so it's suppose to be believed by all Christians, even still to this day. I fail to see why anyone would want to rewrite that they believed in a flat Earth with corners in general. I personally can assure you the flat Earth concept was more popularly believed in than an infinite Earth. The concept of infinity was not a concept they visualize in everyday life, whilst the concept of a finite curvature was. (Reneging back to the idea that humans believe things on how they appear.) They had no reasoning to believe the Earth was infinite.

No one can accurately picture the 4th dimension. It's literally impossible. No 1-dimensional creature can picture the 2nd dimension. No 2-dimesnional creature can picture the 3rd dimension, and etc. This is a demonstrable fact. I don't have to be in your head to know this. Here's a demonstration from Carl Sagan in his series Cosmos.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0[/video]

The point of debate is trying to persuade the other to your side, is it not? Hence it essentially is a contest.

I am thoughtful. You're just misinterpreting me.

 

[Executioner]

First the expansion theory of the unvierse is a "theory" not proven nor discovered so I wont assure anything on it. But if you put our planets and our solar bodies in perspective, everything is in a ellipse or a sphere shape formed, Possibly a force pushing and pulling the gravitational force of the object therefore forming a circular sphere or ellipse, and thats what I believe in.

 

[Cann!bal]

First the expansion theory of the unvierse is a "theory" not proven nor discovered so I wont assure anything on it. But if you put our planets and our solar bodies in perspective, everything is in a ellipse or a sphere shape formed, Possibly a force pushing and pulling the gravitational force of the object therefore forming a circular sphere or ellipse, and thats what I believe in.

You're making an equivocation fallacy. A theory and a scientific theory differ greatly. For example; Evolution, a demonstrable fact, however, as of now still remains a scientific theory.

Like I previously stated, the circular pattern argument puts up a small fight. You're just making an assumption based off what we see, precisely like how we presumed the Earth was the center of the universe, then jumping to a conclusion and believing it entirely.

 

[Executioner]

You're making an equivocation fallacy. A theory and a scientific theory differ greatly. For example; Evolution, a demonstrable fact, however, as of now still remains a scientific theory.

Like I previously stated, the circular pattern argument puts up a small fight. You're just making an assumption based off what we see, precisely like how we presumed the Earth was the center of the universe, then jumping to a conclusion and believing it entirely.

I assumed on what I thought not on what I saw, besides, I never believed that its 100% true but thats what I thought of, my own mind thinking of the possible cause and effects on what I stated above, and as of today, the technology is greater, so the scientific data has increased on its accuracy on research.

 

[Bit]

Indigenous tribes, such as the Aztecs believed in the concept of a flat Earth. (With evidence supposedly predating Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire, so your manifestation is out of the equation.) The Aztecs and the Europeans never made contact, yet they both believed in this concept, as well as gods. Humans believe things on how they appear. Look at any historic or indigenous culture and you'll see a repetition of this idea. It appeared that the Earth was the center of the universe. It appeared that the harvests were dictated by the gods. It appeared the Earth was a flat square or disc, because they knew if it was a sphere, they would be falling off (they had no concept of gravity), and the Aztecs had still not developed the concept of infinity and the Europeans had just begun to let go of their ideology of a flat Earth a couple centuries ago, making your manifestation make less sense in this scenario. The flat Earth ideology is even written in the bible, so it's suppose to be believed by all Christians, even still to this day. I fail to see why anyone would want to rewrite that they believed in a flat Earth with corners in general. I personally can assure you the flat Earth concept was more popularly believed in than an infinite Earth. The concept of infinity was not a concept they visualize in everyday life, whilst the concept of a finite curvature was. (Reneging back to the idea that humans believe things on how they appear.) They had no reasoning to believe the Earth was infinite.

No one can accurately picture the 4th dimension. It's literally impossible. No 1-dimensional creature can picture the 2nd dimension. No 2-dimesnional creature can picture the 3rd dimension, and etc. This is a demonstrable fact. I don't have to be in your head to know this. Here's a demonstration from Carl Sagan in his series Cosmos.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0[/video]

The point of debate is trying to persuade the other to your side, is it not? Hence it essentially is a contest.

I am thoughtful. You're just misinterpreting me.

For me no the point of a debate is to try and learn which side is actually right, for the benefit of mankind. This is a scientific and theoretical debate. Not one born of politics, social stature, and pride.

I will admit your argument regarding what people believing the earth was does make some amount of sense, based on what you said there. Yet you're still basing your arguments off of what history has said, I don't trust history, and neither should you. How do you know some more thoughtful people didn't look out into space and see that everything there is also a sphere, and say "well we could be too". You don't.

If I remember correctly my ex showed me this theory of multiple dimensions, is it the one where there is an infinite amount of possibilities for something? If that's the one, then the theory itself falls prey to it's own logic, meaning the theory itself could be one of an infinite amount of other theories, in theory anyway.

Either way, if you could respect that I am trying to look into this particular theory and take your personal beliefs elsewhere I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

---

You're making an equivocation fallacy. A theory and a scientific theory differ greatly. For example; Evolution, a demonstrable fact, however, as of now still remains a scientific theory.

Like I previously stated, the circular pattern argument puts up a small fight. You're just making an assumption based off what we see, precisely like how we presumed the Earth was the center of the universe, then jumping to a conclusion and believing it entirely.

I would label it as more than a small fight, everything seems to repeat itself. Even evolution, and what would the universe of done if not evolve? Everything evolves.

 

[Executioner]

For me no the point of a debate is to try and learn which side is actually right, for the benefit of mankind. This is a scientific and theoretical debate. Not one born of politics, social stature, and pride.

I will admit your argument regarding what people believing the earth was does make some amount of sense, based on what you said there. Yet you're still basing your arguments off of what history has said, I don't trust history, and neither should you. How do you know some more thoughtful people didn't look out into space and see that everything there is also a sphere, and say "well we could be too". You don't.

If I remember correctly my ex showed me this theory of multiple dimensions, is it the one where there is an infinite amount of possibilities for something? If that's the one, then the theory itself falls prey to it's own logic, meaning the theory itself could be one of an infinite amount of other theories, in theory anyway.

Either way, if you could respect that I am trying to look into this particular theory and take your personal beliefs elsewhere I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

---

I would label it as more than a small fight, everything seems to repeat itself. Even evolution, and what would the universe of done if not evolve? Everything evolves.

---

Absolutely correct, Cann!bal in terms of his approach in debating is more of attacking religion on how it is "not true" and "not proven" and that assumptions on creation is more of a fairy tale but wants us to believe in Carl Sagan and his works on quantum physics which is solely created by mankind itself, Also!

But I did like the first pharagraph that you said debating should be a discussion not starting a prideful argument on what side to believe in, it's nonsense that leads to nothing, 'if we wont progress we wont success'.

 

[Bit]

Absolutely correct, Cann!bal in terms of his approach in debating is more of attacking religion on how it is "not true" and "not proven" and that assumptions on creation is more of a fairy tale but wants us to believe in Carl Sagan and his works on quantum physics which is solely created by mankind itself, Also!

But I did like the first pharagraph that you said debating should be a discussion not starting a prideful argument on what side to believe in, it's nonsense that leads to nothing, 'if we wont progress we wont success'.

Yeah that's not very thoughtful reasoning, when you put it like that.

Thanks for what you've contributed btw, I never thought that the universe could be an ever expanding sphere but that certainly fits into what I was thinking along the lines of. Makes sense to me. +rep

 

[Cann!bal]

For me no the point of a debate is to try and learn which side is actually right, for the benefit of mankind. This is a scientific and theoretical debate. Not one born of politics, social stature, and pride.

I will admit your argument regarding what people believing the earth was does make some amount of sense, based on what you said there. Yet you're still basing your arguments off of what history has said, I don't trust history, and neither should you. How do you know some more thoughtful people didn't look out into space and see that everything there is also a sphere, and say "well we could be too". You don't.

If I remember correctly my ex showed me this theory of multiple dimensions, is it the one where there is an infinite amount of possibilities for something? If that's the one, then the theory itself falls prey to it's own logic, meaning the theory itself could be one of an infinite amount of other theories, in theory anyway.

Either way, if you could respect that I am trying to look into this particular theory and take your personal beliefs elsewhere I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

---

I would label it as more than a small fight, everything seems to repeat itself. Even evolution, and what would the universe of done if not evolve? Everything evolves.

---

That question was more so a rhetorical question. The point of a debater from the debaters' point of view is to persuade the audience through demonstration and manifestation. And in the process, determining who is most likely correct and benefiting.

You cannot discredit all of history for that sole reasoning. Besides, my point that humans believe things on how they appear still stands. If primitive men without technology, gazed at the sun and moon, they would determine the objects were discs, not spheres. They cannot see the curvature of the giants. Hence, why a flat disc theory was one of the popular theories, alongside with the flat corner theory.

How's that relevant to your flaw I pointed out?

Seriously? The idea of a debate is to literally enforce our ideas and beliefs on others in order to persuade. You should have never made this thread if that's not what you wanted.

It's unwise to say therefore believe in the entirety of this theory because you think there's a universal pattern.

Absolutely correct, Cann!bal in terms of his approach in debating is more of attacking religion on how it is "not true" and "not proven" and that assumptions on creation is more of a fairy tale but wants us to believe in Carl Sagan and his works on quantum physics which is solely created by mankind itself, Also!

But I did like the first pharagraph that you said debating should be a discussion not starting a prideful argument on what side to believe in, it's nonsense that leads to nothing, 'if we wont progress we wont success'.

Are you kidding me? The sole time I brought up a religion was because it was relevant to my argument. I haven't even discussed religion single time other than that. It was not an attack.

I don't want you to believe in Carl Sagan. He's quite irrelevant. I showcased him solely to demonstrate 3-dimensional creatures in a 3-dimensional world cannot picture the 4th dimension. They're not his works. Science's evidence is not equatable to your conspiracy theory equivalent beliefs, so yes, I would prefer if you believed in science rather than the indemonstrable. Science isn't a conspiracy theory against your religious beliefs, so don't behave as if it is.

 

[Bit]

Wow. I expected plenty of people to not respect my wishes. But never a moderator.

I will ask you again, please leave my thread alone.

By the way, you've contradicted yourself in this argument of yours.

Now please leave my thread alone, thank you, moderator.

 

[Cann!bal]

Wow. I expected plenty of people to not respect my wishes. But never a moderator.

I will ask you again, please leave my thread alone.

By the way, you've contradicted yourself in this argument of yours.

Now please leave my thread alone, thank you, moderator.

One of the aspects of a debate is to listen to others ideologies. Don't post a thread if you're going to reject criticism.

Where precisely did I contradict myself then?

 

[Nevermind]

@Bit

You made a thread in the Philosophy & Debates section, and you asked for others' opinions on your theory. You cannot ask them to leave if you don't like what they are saying about your theory.